Dazzle
-
Posts
11,843 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Dazzle
-
-
Someone here is talking about logic, but this is the same person who disputes evidence contrary to his position as "half a draft list".
On 2/28/2021 at 8:42 PM, Provost said:Basically none of the pundit/prospect lists had Virtanen that high.
Most had Nylander or Ehlers.
I did an in-depth on the various lists in another thread and compared them to Benning.
Button and Pronman did better than Benning overall. Most were worse just on the basis of not picking Petterson where he was picked.
I remember thinking Virtanen was a stretch and we could have traded down to get him if he is who we wanted. My pick that year wasn’t as good as Nylander/Ehlers... but I had Ritchie as the BPA when we drafted, and I take him over Jake any day now too.
https://editorinleaf.com/2014/06/23/2014-nhl-draft-profile-jake-virtanen/
International Scouting Services: 7
Central Scouting – North American Skaters: 6
Hockey Prospect: 18
5 hours ago, Provost said:Do you have some sources for that?
No redrafts I have seen have him that high, he is a late 1st rounder or later. None of them include his bad performance for the last calendar year and the most optimistic one had him at 22 and it was done right at the end of his big hot streak in the middle of last year, and doesn't account for the fact he has fallen off a cliff since last February which would absolutely drop him farther down in a redraft again.
https://www.nhl.com/news/revisiting-the-2014-nhl-draft-david-pastrnak-replaces-aaron-ekblad/c-307746004
https://www.nbcsports.com/washington/capitals/redrafting-2014-nhl-draft-jakub-vrana-top-10-pick
https://theathletic.com/1584416/2020/02/06/pronman-re-drafting-the-nhls-class-of-2014/No, Provost, I am not engaging with you.
This is just proof that some posters' "logic" is flat out dishonest. Constantly shifting argument parameters to make your argument fit is why it's dishonest. That is the point of my post. I do not intend to speak to Provost about his rebuttals.
-
1
-
-
The commentator is Jim Hughson and he was especially notable for GREAT SAVE CLOUTIERRRRR.
-
6 minutes ago, Gawdzukes said:
you would be right
@Canucks2288
@vanucks59
... etc
too busy on HF putting their rebuttal together
I think Canucks2288 is a fan, but not a fan of Green/Baumer.
-
Just now, CanucksJay said:
Also funny how some ppl were freaking out about the rest days instead of practice.
Nice that Green got rewarded with a solid effort from his players.
Practice? We talking about practice?
-
The trolls are too busy pretending to celebrate like they are fans of this team.
This win doesn't change my view about Green and his staff though, for now. This lack of consistency is on the players, as well as the coaching staff.
-
3
-
1
-
-
Didn't Demko get a shutout in the playoffs?
-
1
-
1
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, Angry Goose said:
Cheech calling you out
Structure structure structure, but this is the third period. Only reason there's some safety is because if the empty net. Still 3 mins left.
-
1
-
-
These defensive systems are trash. Coach Green complicit with defending the lead. This is a losing mentality. No wonder why Green's stats are on par with WD, who has inferior rosters.
-
All teams have cap problems. Simply pointing out that we have cap problems is about the least helpful contribution someone can make about a situation. You don't get rid of cap problems that easily because - get what? Other teams have cap problems.
Therefore, getting low value for what is perceived to be a cap problem is exactly how you get hosed in a trade. Virtanen is not worth much, so you'll either get a cap dump for him, or a really unsavouringly low pick.
And people here already feel like Benning isn't the best trader. Selling low will solidify this 'reputation' further.
-
6 hours ago, shadowscyne said:
Edmonton claims Stalock
Seems like goalies are sought after than forwards. I think this is the third one this season.
-
A certain poster is crying that his name was mentioned a couple of times, but I didn't engage with the poster, as promised. If only he could comprehend what he was reading, he'd understand instead of blabbering.
I was merely discussing what had been taking place, in order to talk to kilgore. Nothing more, nothing less.-
1
-
-
Just now, kilgore said:
I just think it boils down to the buck stops with JB. One can give excuses and other examples of other GMs making mistakes too. But that doesn't negate JB's mistakes. We have fun(?) debating hockey decisions in here, but JB is the one with all the insight, experience, connections, and power to actually make those decisions. I'm more sour now mostly because its a accumulation of JB's past.....and ongoing.....mistakes. This re-signing of Jake for two years after a dismal playoff performance, is simply the latest one. And its killing me because I've spent so much time and dedication to this team, and I want to see them win the Cup in my lifetime.
Okay Deb, sorry I just had to jump in.
Yeah, that's fair. JB has made more than enough mistakes to be judged for that. I think it's an interesting take to say that the mistakes he's made are at least partially attributable to Gillis' mishandling of prospect development. But definitely not an "excuse" for JB.
-
1
-
-
51 minutes ago, kilgore said:
Not to step into your mini feud, but I've been torturing myself reading through the last half of this thread and the tit for tat between you and Provost. A heck of a lot of words of a very simple argument....Is being rated #6 for NA skaters, different than being rated #6 of available talent from the whole planet overall, (including goalies)? Seems you took a heck of a long time to finally agree to that, kind of.
That whole argument is a red herring to what JB did this off season with him. Re-signed to a two year back loaded contract. Screwing up his ability to even trade him (looks like the Anaheim deal is failing because of that) Seems a little desperate just to fill out his roster after he "ran out of time" with the players he should have been concentrating on. I'd rather have kept Stecher @2.3, who was way more important to our success than Jake, our second best +/- D on the team last season. No need for Hamonic. Use that money to get a decent third liner FA.
The fact is Jake was not taken by any team above us in the draft, and that we have no idea how high Jake would have gone if we'd passed on him. Are you sure that the Hurricanes, Leafs, and Jets would have picked Virtanen? A player that The Red Line Report praised for his skating, but also said:
"Prototypical pro power winger with the draft's best combination of size, speed, shot, and raw power. A natural sniper whose shot is an absolute laser beam, and he loves to fire it from any anywhere. An explosive straight ahead skater who just torches defenders and plays with swagger. Absolutely loves the physical side of the game - gives and takes big hits and comes back even harder. Tough as nails and a devastating fighter. Impossible to move him off the puck from the circles in. He doesn't have great vision or hockey sense - if he did, we'd be talking about the clear-cut best player in the draft. Holds onto the puck longer than he should. Great at penetrating the middle in offensive zone, uses size to gain space in the slot and knock players off the puck. A physically imposing open ice hitter – always has opponents looking over their shoulders."
Benning overlooked "vision and hockey sense" as being important, and went with the popular local boy who was going to somehow overcome that lack of hockey sense with his grit and speed. Because he "Absolutely loves the physical side of the game" and " Impossible to move him off the puck from the circles in"
Is it that hard to admit JB made a mistake in 2014? I can. Just like we don't know how high Jake would have been picked if not for us, Jim didn't know he'd be such a bust either. Fair enough. But he made the pick. He is the one with way more informed advice at his beckon call than we do on a message board. That's one thing that is hilarious on here, giving Jim a bottomless mulligan as if he had just as many resources as any member of CDC.
The buck stops with him, sorry, that's the responsibility he is paid handsomely for. He was the one that chose not to listen to those who were more skeptical like Craig Button, and instead agreed with Bob McKenzie, who I'm using because he was the highest, @ 8, you could find. BTW someone who also raved about Cody Hodgson as being maybe the biggest steal in his years draft.
.
.
This is a logic that doesn't make sense. If we saw ahead of time that they'll pick a player, does that mean he is necessarily "better" than another player? Maybe the player fits a team's need more (i.e Barret Hayton), which was a reach of a pick at the time. However, he's looking to be a good pick after the fact.
https://thehockeywriters.com/barrett-hayton-2018-nhl-draft-prospect-profile/
Barrett's pick was rated as high as a 9, but most of the other picks had him later in the first round. If we thought about players like Provost does, he'll just say it's a horrible pick because of what scouts said. Yet he's proven to the Coyotes that he was a good pick in hindsight. Risky picky, but one that paid off.
Look at it using the Pettersson pick. I think it's safe to say most people did not know he'll end up being one of the best players in that draft thus far, outshining higher picks like Hischier and Patrick. So we can evaluate a player in hindsight all day long, like Provost has been doing, but he'll never be able to explain what makes a player "better" or worse, other than him not being rated higher or lower by scouts.
He's tried so hard to make himself sound right, it really is as painful to read as he says.
But I am done with talking to someone who doesn't use his brain for anything else than to rehash what he originally stated, and calling everyone else irrational.
-
4 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:
I'm going to suggest that Dazzle and Provost agree to disagree and, if necessary, use ignore moving forward to stop the back/forth.
Done. I'm not going to personally engage with this poster again.
-
54 minutes ago, Provost said:
Yep... if the Heinen for Jake pretty much straight up rumour was real, that is a terrible idea and Benning needs to be removed without any more delay. Take a low pick and don't eat back another player that you would have to qualify in the summer at an inflated price tag relative to his performance. Cap space is more important than a handful of games from another bottom 6 winger in Heinen.. during a season where the playoffs are already out of reach.
If the stark reality is that no one is even offering a low pick for Jake at this point, then at least try to waive him and see if someone bites.... at least before you take back bad money in return.A low pick is useless without proper drafting and developing - hardly a guarantee. You talked so much crap about the Hansen and Goldobin trade. If that trade had worked out, the trade would've been robbery for the Canucks.
Similarly, getting a pick at any round is not necessarily a guarantee that a good player will be selected. I am not at all saying we should dump all picks, but not to overvalue them. A pick is just a pick. A lot of things can happen during a prospect's time. Injury, illness etc. A first rounder doesn't make them a lasting nhl player. A lot of the highly touted players may never see much NHL time.
Of course, these considerations are beyond the intellect of someone like you. You can stay back and evaluate players in hindsight, like you knew it before anyone else.
We've also seen just how infrequently players are picked up on waivers this season - for the very same reasons that you mentioned - cap space. Duh.
God, Provost. Just a joke every post.
-
4 minutes ago, shayster007 said:
You just expressed the single biggest reason why we shouldn't move him, as reasoning why we should move him.
Yep, let's get rid of him because he's not worth what we want - ohwait.
-
18 hours ago, Crabcakes said:
I wouldn't be surprised. He was a point a game player with the Hitmen for his 2 final seasons there. Then in Van and in Utica he was much much less.
2012-13 Calgary Hitmen
WHL 62 16 18 34 67 25 | Playoffs 15 2 4 6 27 -2 Canada Pacific U17
WHC-17 5 5 2 7 8 | 2013-14 Calgary Hitmen
WHL 71 45 26 71 100 23 | Playoffs 6 1 3 4 4 -2 Canada U18
WJC-18 7 3 3 6 10 2 | 2014-15 Calgary Hitmen
WHL 50 21 31 52 82 15 | Playoffs 14 5 8 13 28 -1 Utica Comets
AHL 0 0 0 0 0 0 | Playoffs 10 0 1 1 6 2 Canada U20
WJC-20 7 1 3 4 4 4 | 2015-16 Vancouver Canucks
NHL 55 7 6 13 45 -7 | Utica Comets
AHL 2 0 0 0 0 0 | Canada U20
WJC-20 5 0 1 1 10 0 | 2016-17 Vancouver Canucks
NHL 10 0 1 1 2 1 | Utica Comets
AHL 65 9 10 19 48 -11 | Virtanen was ruined by a horrible systems coach - both by WD and Green. Neither of them know how to utilize certain players well. I really wonder at this point if Eriksson would have done better under a different coach.
-
3
-
-
15 hours ago, Crabcakes said:
Sounds like you know more than you're willing to say right now....
What more do you want him to say? He admitted he was wrong about Jake, and so were a lot of people who thought he would pan out.
-
12 minutes ago, Provost said:
Sorry for assuming you had figured it out earlier, my bad.
You keep dancing around it and “almost” getting it though.
My logic was not that Virtanen would have been rated lower if you included Europeans at all. My statement was that YOU can’t use a prospect list excluding Europeans to COMPARE with actual combined draft lists like you did. You can’t make that comparison without THE BACKGROUND DATA. You have no idea where Jake would have been drafted on an imaginary combined list... neither do I, because it doesn’t exist and your entire premise has been that it does exist and that it proves me wrong
. Show that list, I have asked you repeatedly.... cite it from somewhere.
You are the one claiming that because he is 6th out of just NA skaters, it is evidence that I am wrong about him not being rated that high in the (combined) draft.
So you can’t use an imaginary list as evidence, which is your entire premise.
Bob McKenzie had him 8th overall. The difference between 6th and 8th is not insignificant, but close enough that the players are reasonably comparable. COMPARABLE.
That means your statement that none of the scouts had him pegged at 6 is MISLEADING. It's not like Jake was supposed to be this late first round pick that was picked far earlier than expected. Based on team needs, a player MAY be picked higher than where they were 'supposed' to be. We saw this with Barrett Hayton. He was pretty much an off the board pick. Another example was Michael Grabner.
What don't you understand about this? There is no imaginary list. Everything I've cited has a source. Meanwhile, you have yet to provide a source to back up your claims.
Sorry, but I'm not sorry for thinking you would understand basic concepts of logic, even when given an explanation. Get your ego out of your ass.Also, you were the one who said that 1/6th of a list is considered half a draft list. LOL. What a joke.
-
35 minutes ago, Provost said:
I can’t even follow that tortured logic...
You are right in your own words... when making comparisons they have to be close to, or equal, otherwise they make no sense. (You forgot that they can be different as long as they are representative of each other.. but I will let that error slide).A list of just North American Skaters is not close to, equal to, or representative of combined draft rankings. It is just not, by literal definition.
You are finally starting to get why you are wrong... it took a while.
A Prius (list of just North American skaters) is absolutely not the same as a Minivan (a combined draft ranking including all skaters). One seats a lot more people. Jake should not look like a better deal because of a list that excludes all Europeans...
You are welcome...
No, this is where you failed in your logic, lol. You're unable to comprehend basic logic, hence you think it's tortured logic. It's really not that difficult.
A minivan that is rated # 1 by European markets doesn't necessarily mean he is valued at the same level as a Prius in a North American market. There might not be anything wrong with that minivan, but that doesn't matter.
Your talk about Matthews, Laine, Pulj was trying to suggest that these players were rated better than Juolevi, but you jumped to the conclusions without explaining how you arrived there. In fact, I should remind you that your opinion should have facts.
Your logic was that Virtanen should have been rated lower with the inclusion of European skaters. Yet this is where you make the comparison fallacy. Without context, we cannot make a proper comparison without the background ddata
You also did not address any of my criticisms about how you compared players, as usual. No argument from you means you'll be repeating your same points. For example, why did Klim Kostin rated number 1 for EU skaters get picked 31st, while Pettersson got picked 5th? Yet wasn't even rated on the ISS.
How much times are you going to insist on being right when others have told you that you're wrong? I'm honestly curious as to what you provide to society.
-
1 minute ago, gurn said:
They didn't give the raise to a guy that is scratched 60% of the time.
They "gave" the raise to a player that played all the games last year, scoring 18 goals, and 6 game winners with 13:05 ice time avg.
I you are going to crap on a player at least use facts to do it,
I really feel like we have a bunch of sociopaths on this forum. There's so many people that would rather twist data or make crap up to fit their own version of the events, rather than looking at the other evidence that might challenge their position.
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Wolfgang Durst said:
Oh my goodness,
Jake needs a contract and money for motiviation.... That says it all.
No intrinsic motiviation from Jake
No passion for the game from Jake
Jim didn't do his due diligence on Jake before drafting him - another glaring mistake from Jim. What's the purpose of having a conversation between the prospect and the Canucks staff at the combine ahead of the draft? Right, to get a grasp of the personality of a player, especially what's the motivation of the player. Does he love the game.
Funny that some Jake supporters have been defending him for several years.
2.55 is not a bad signing, period. If you look at the comparisons, Virtanen's signing was no more generous or cheaper than everyone else with his production. There is a list out there, but if you're gonna slag a player, I want to see what basis you're looking at.
We've already seen @Provost try to "weasel" his way with data by misreading it. Truly embarrassing. It's hilarious that he accuses me of doing it, but he doesn't realize that he's the one doing it.
-
1
-
-
25 minutes ago, Provost said:
Sure we can say he was a bad pick... he didn't work out. We have many years of history to show us this.
Can you make an argument for why Benning ignored the overall consensus of Nylander as BPA in that spot? I guess you can, but it doesn't stop it from being a bad pick.
You can't "forgive" decisions that turn out badly, but give credit for decisions that turn out well. That is just inventing things to support a preconceived opinion. Virtanen and Juolevi were bad picks (at least with any evidence we have up until now). Petterson was a great pick (at least with any evidence we have up until now).You're not reading anything, so I'll make it bite sized. This has already been said a number of tmes.
You've used the excuse that Virtanen wouldn't have been ranked # 6 overall" excuse, especially when taking into account European skaters.
I've given you an example of how you've conflated this to mean that European skaters are equal to NA skaters, when this is a logical fallacy. I thought you were a math person. When making comparisons, they have to be equal, or close to equal, otherwise they make no sense.
Example: I want to buy a minivan, but it costs 30,000. Oh look, a Prius sells for 22,000. "That looks like a better deal". <--- Is it a better deal? How will we know? On what basis are we comparing a Prius to a Minivan?
Now you've gone back to the "Juolevi is a bad pick" statement, except TSN rates him number 6. Craig Button specifically says this.
https://www.tsn.ca/6-olli-juolevi-d-1.466965
So which is it, Provost? Are you shifting the goal posts again or not?
You are so bad at reasoning skills. Holy.
-
2 hours ago, Provost said:
Wait... so now that it is clear to everyone that Virtanen was pegged lower than 6th overall on ALL the other draft lists you provided as your “evidence” (your repeated silliness about North American Skaters aside).... and the consensus was that Nylander was the BPA at that spot....
You are now falling back on an alternate dimensions theory to support your argument?
So to justify the pick we now have to imagine an alternate dimension that Virtanen worked out and scored like Ehlers... and Ehlers scored like Virtanen? ... and we have to use our imagination years later to support Jim picking him higher than the other lists would have back in 2014?
That is getting next level crazy in Jake fanboy-dom.
We all live in this dimension unfortunately, where Virtanen isn’t producing like an elite talent.
It is pretty simple no matter how much you try to wriggle and weasel around.
Virtanen hasn’t lived up to his draft position.
All the other public lists you provided show him going either a little later or a lot later in the draft.
The consensus pick of almost all those lists would have been Nylander.
In this dimension Nylander is better than Virtanen.
So that adds up to it being a bad pick by Benning.
Is your next argument going to be that Petterson wasn’t a good pick by Benning because in an alternate universe Gabe Vilardi has been outscoring him?
That is your logic.... and it is weird and dumb.
Wow, I put in an alternate scenario that was more about a food for thought. It's funny that you decided to try and feast on that. I even said that everyone knows that Virtanen didn't work out. There is no spinning of the story that he was a good pick, in hindsight.
That being said, you've completedly misunderstood what was written, either deliberately or due to incompetence.
You've stated exactly what I knew you were gonna say about NA skaters and European. And I've already addressed this beforehand because I knew you'd go this route. Looks like you didn't read.
Your theory: Virtanen wouldn't be number 6 if you included European skaters into the mix
Your fallacy: the assumption that European skaters were necessarily equal to NA skaters.
Example in 2017, Klim Kostin and Elias Pettersson were rated 1 and 2 respectively. Does that mean Kostin should have been a higher pick or no?
Kostin ends up being picked last in the first round, whereas Pettersson gets picked 5th.
Provost, no matter how hard you try to justify your spot, you've embarrassed yourself plenty of times in this thread.
Five times you've been wrong. This one being a logical fallacy.
[GDT/PGT] Vancouver Canucks @ Winnterpeg Jets | March 2, 2021 | 5 p.m. PT | SNP, TVAS
in Canucks Talk
Posted
Why did the defense just disappear at the end? Hahah.